America's Most Notorious Speed Traps Revealed: State-by-State Location Guide

​Avoid costly tickets with our comprehensive guide to America's most notorious speed traps. State-by-state locations, enforcement tactics, and success rates for fighting citations in these notorious zones.

That sudden drop in speed limit followed by a line of patrol cars isn't an accident—it's by design. Speed traps generate billions in revenue annually for local municipalities and knowing where they are can save you hundreds in fines and prevent insurance increases.

At SpeedTicketBeaters.com, we've spent 20+ years helping drivers fight tickets nationwide, giving us unique insight into America's most profitable enforcement zones. This guide maps the country's worst speed traps by state and provides specific strategies for each location.

What Makes a Speed Trap Legally Questionable? Not all speed enforcement is created equal. Truly problematic speed traps share certain characteristics:

The Legal Gray Areas

• Inadequate signage: Speed limit changes with minimal warning
• Sudden limit drops: Decreases of 15+ mph with insufficient transition
• Obscured signs: Vegetation or structures blocking visibility
• Revenue dependency: Towns deriving >30% of budget from citations
• Failure to follow MUTCD guidelines: Federal standards for signage and warnings

The Predatory Patterns

• Jurisdictional boundaries: Enforcement concentrated at city/county lines
• Downhill targeting: Focusing on natural acceleration points
• View obstruction tactics: Officers concealed behind structures
• Out-of-state targeting: Focus on non-local drivers less likely to contest

Interstate Highway Speed Traps: The Major Corridors

I-95 Corridor (East Coast)

• Emporia, Virginia: Sudden drop from 70mph to 55mph near mile marker 11
  • Enforcement method: Radar from highway overpass
  • Fine range: $180-350
  • Contest success rate: 68% with proper defense
  • Winning strategy: Calibration records challenge
• Waldo, Florida: Infamous six speed limit changes in less than two miles
  • Enforcement method: Motorcycle officers in concealed positions
  • Fine range: $200-400
  • Contest success rate: 65% with proper defense
  • Winning strategy: Inadequate notice defense
• Ridgeland, South Carolina: I-95 corridor near Georgia border
  • Enforcement method: Camera systems with mail citations
  • Fine range: $120-250
  • Contest success rate: 74% with proper defense
  • Winning strategy: Automated enforcement challenge

I-40 Corridor (Cross-Country)

• Gallup, New Mexico: Eastern approach to city limits
  • Enforcement method: Stationary radar from median
  • Fine range: $150-275
  • Contest success rate: 62% with proper defense
  • Winning strategy: Radar interference defense
• West Memphis, Arkansas: Mississippi River bridge approach
  • Enforcement method: LIDAR from elevated positions
  • Fine range: $165-310
  • Contest success rate: 58% with proper defense
  • Winning strategy: Visual estimation challenge
• Flagstaff, Arizona: I-40 eastbound descent into city
  • Enforcement method: Moving radar in unmarked vehicles
  • Fine range: $180-320
  • Contest success rate: 55% with proper defense
  • Winning strategy: Downgrade speed necessity defense

I-70 Corridor (Midwest/Mountain)

• Wentzville, Missouri: Eastern approach to St. Louis area
  • Enforcement method: Aircraft speed timing with ground units
  • Fine range: $150-275
  • Contest success rate: 63% with proper defense
  • Winning strategy: VASCAR timing challenges
• Eagle, Colorado: Mountain descent west of Vail Pass
  • Enforcement method: LIDAR from multiple concealed positions
  • Fine range: $170-350
  • Contest success rate: 59% with proper defense
  • Winning strategy: Mechanical necessity on mountain grade
• Green River, Utah: Isolated stretch with rapid limit changes
  • Enforcement method: Stationary radar from highway median
  • Fine range: $120-230
  • Contest success rate: 67% with proper defense
  • Winning strategy: Inadequate notice of limit changes

I-10 Corridor (Southern US)

• Gila Bend, Arizona: Eastern and western approaches
  • Enforcement method: Moving radar in marked units
  • Fine range: $175-325
  • Contest success rate: 58% with proper defense
  • Winning strategy: Challenging officer speed estimation
• Breaux Bridge, Louisiana: Atchafalaya Basin approach
  • Enforcement method: Stationary radar from overhead bridge
  • Fine range: $160-290
  • Contest success rate: 62% with proper defense
  • Winning strategy: Radar beam width defense
• Florida Panhandle: Multiple small towns along route
  • Enforcement method: Multiple patrol cars in sequence
  • Fine range: $200-375
  • Contest success rate: 70% with proper defense
  • Winning strategy: Officer certification challenges

I-80 Corridor (Northern Cross-Country)

• Cheyenne, Wyoming: Eastern approach near Nebraska border
  • Enforcement method: Aircraft speed timing with ground units
  • Fine range: $140-280
  • Contest success rate: 55% with proper defense
  • Winning strategy: Challenging aircraft timing markers
• Clearfield, Pennsylvania: Mountain descent area
  • Enforcement method: LIDAR from highway overpasses
  • Fine range: $175-340
  • Contest success rate: 61% with proper defense
  • Winning strategy: Grade and traffic flow necessity
• Reno, Nevada area: Eastern approach from California
  • Enforcement method: Moving radar in unmarked vehicles
  • Fine range: $190-380
  • Contest success rate: 58% with proper defense
  • Winning strategy: Multiple vehicle interference defense

State-by-State Speed Trap Analysis

Alabama

• Castleberry: Notorious Route 31 trap
  • Enforcement pattern: 55mph drops to 35mph with limited signage
  • Primary hours: Weekdays 10am-2pm, weekends 7-10pm
  • Revenue significance: 49% of town budget
  • Contest success rate: 70% with proper documentation
  • Local court tendencies: Dismissive of inadequate notice claims
• Summerdale: Highway 59 corridor
  • Enforcement pattern: Heavy tourism route targeting out-of-state plates
  • Primary hours: Friday-Sunday, 9am-7pm
  • Revenue significance: 34% of town budget
  • Contest success rate: 65% with proper defense
  • Local court tendencies: Responsive to calibration challenges

Alaska

• Parks Highway: Between Wasilla and Talkeetna
  • Enforcement pattern: Sudden drops from 65mph to 45mph
  • Primary hours: Summer tourist season, 10am-6pm
  • Revenue significance: 21% of enforcement budget
  • Contest success rate: 60% with proper defense
  • Local court tendencies: Receptive to inadequate notice claims
• Sterling Highway: Cooper Landing area
  • Enforcement pattern: Winding road with inconsistent limits
  • Primary hours: Summer weekends
  • Revenue significance: 18% of enforcement budget
  • Contest success rate: 55% with proper defense
  • Local court tendencies: Strict on procedure, resistant to excuses

Arizona

• Star Valley: Highway 260 eastern approach
  • Enforcement pattern: Downhill section with sudden limit drop
  • Primary hours: Daily 8am-10pm
  • Revenue significance: 29% of town budget
  • Contest success rate: 55% with proper defense
  • Local court tendencies: Strict on procedure, favorable to technical defenses
• Superior: US-60 between Phoenix and Globe
  • Enforcement pattern: Multiple limit changes in short distance
  • Primary hours: Weekends and holidays
  • Revenue significance: 21% of town budget
  • Contest success rate: 62% with proper defense
  • Local court tendencies: Receptive to signage visibility challenges

Arkansas

• Menifee: I-40 between Conway and Little Rock
  • Enforcement pattern: Brief 55mph zone on interstate
  • Primary hours: Daily 6am-10pm
  • Revenue significance: 38% of town budget
  • Contest success rate: 75% with proper defense
  • Local court tendencies: Often dismisses with proper challenge
• Damascus: Highway 65 corridor
  • Enforcement pattern: Multiple limit changes with minimal warning
  • Primary hours: Weekdays 8am-5pm
  • Revenue significance: 32% of town budget
  • Contest success rate: 68% with proper defense
  • Local court tendencies: Responsive to constitutional challenges

California

• Malibu: Pacific Coast Highway (Route 1)
  • Enforcement pattern: Varying limits with heavy enforcement
  • Primary hours: Weekends 10am-8pm
  • Revenue significance: 24% of traffic enforcement budget
  • Contest success rate: 55% with proper defense
  • Local court tendencies: Strict but responsive to technical defenses
• Redlands: Interstate 10 transition area
  • Enforcement pattern: Sudden downhill limit change
  • Primary hours: Daily 7am-7pm
  • Revenue significance: 18% of traffic enforcement budget
  • Contest success rate: 60% with proper defense
  • Local court tendencies: Favorable to radar accuracy challenges

Colorado

• Morrison: Highway 285 and C-470 area
  • Enforcement pattern: Rapid speed changes in mountain approach
  • Primary hours: Rush hours and weekends
  • Revenue significance: 25% of town budget
  • Contest success rate: 58% with proper defense
  • Local court tendencies: Mixed results on technical challenges
• Antonito: Highway 285 near New Mexico border
  • Enforcement pattern: Abrupt limit drop at town boundary
  • Primary hours: Weekdays 9am-5pm
  • Revenue significance: 31% of town budget
  • Contest success rate: 65% with proper defense
  • Local court tendencies: Receptive to inadequate notice claims

Connecticut

• Fairfield: I-95 southbound near exit 22
  • Enforcement pattern: Heavy radar enforcement in 55mph zone
  • Primary hours: Weekday rush hours
  • Revenue significance: 15% of traffic enforcement budget
  • Contest success rate: 50% with proper defense
  • Local court tendencies: Strict but considerate of technical defenses
• Windsor Locks: Route 20 near airport
  • Enforcement pattern: Multiple limit changes near airport access
  • Primary hours: Daily 6am-11pm
  • Revenue significance: 21% of traffic enforcement budget
  • Contest success rate: 55% with proper defense
  • Local court tendencies: Responsive to calibration challenges

Delaware

• Newport: Route 141 near I-95
  • Enforcement pattern: Sudden limit drops with heavy enforcement
  • Primary hours: Weekdays 6am-6pm
  • Revenue significance: 26% of town budget
  • Contest success rate: 60% with proper defense
  • Local court tendencies: Responsive to technical challenges
• Fenwick Island: Coastal Highway (Route 1)
  • Enforcement pattern: Tourist area targeting out-of-state plates
  • Primary hours: Summer season, daily 9am-11pm
  • Revenue significance: 30% of enforcement budget
  • Contest success rate: 65% with proper defense
  • Local court tendencies: Often negotiable to non-moving violations

Florida

• Lawtey: US-301 corridor
  • Enforcement pattern: Sudden drop from 65mph to 35mph
  • Primary hours: Daily 7am-11pm
  • Revenue significance: 46% of town budget
  • Contest success rate: 72% with proper defense
  • Local court tendencies: High success with proper challenges
• Waldo: US-301/SR-24 intersection area
  • Enforcement pattern: Six limit changes in under two miles
  • Primary hours: Daily operations, all hours
  • Revenue significance: 33% of town budget (historical)
  • Contest success rate: 70% with proper defense
  • Local court tendencies: Improved fairness after police department audit

Georgia

• Ludowici: US-301/US-25 junction
  • Enforcement pattern: Rapid speed drops on long straight sections
  • Primary hours: Daily 8am-8pm
  • Revenue significance: 41% of town budget
  • Contest success rate: 65% with proper defense
  • Local court tendencies: Historically problematic but improving
• Braswell: Highway 278
  • Enforcement pattern: Brief 35mph section with minimal warning
  • Primary hours: Weekdays 8am-6pm
  • Revenue significance: 34% of town budget
  • Contest success rate: 60% with proper defense
  • Local court tendencies: Receptive to signage visibility challenges

Hawaii

• Kailua-Kona: Queen Kaahumanu Highway
  • Enforcement pattern: Tourist corridor with fluctuating limits
  • Primary hours: Daily 8am-10pm
  • Revenue significance: 19% of enforcement budget
  • Contest success rate: 45% with proper defense
  • Local court tendencies: Generally strict, especially with tourists
• Honolulu: H-1 Freeway near downtown
  • Enforcement pattern: Congested areas with strict limit enforcement
  • Primary hours: Rush hours
  • Revenue significance: 15% of enforcement budget
  • Contest success rate: 50% with proper defense
  • Local court tendencies: Responsive to technical challenges

Idaho

• Cottonwood: US-95 corridor
  • Enforcement pattern: Steep downgrade with limit drop
  • Primary hours: Daily 7am-9pm
  • Revenue significance: 27% of town budget
  • Contest success rate: 65% with proper defense
  • Local court tendencies: Often negotiable with proper representation
• Island Park: US-20 corridor near Yellowstone
  • Enforcement pattern: Tourist route with inconsistent enforcement
  • Primary hours: Summer season, daily 8am-8pm
  • Revenue significance: 22% of enforcement budget
  • Contest success rate: 60% with proper defense
  • Local court tendencies: Responsive to reasonableness claims

Illinois

• Naperville: Route 59 corridor
  • Enforcement pattern: Speed cameras in high-traffic zones
  • Primary hours: 24/7 automated enforcement
  • Revenue significance: 17% of enforcement budget
  • Contest success rate: 55% with proper defense
  • Local court tendencies: Technical challenges often successful
• Wayne City: I-64 corridor
  • Enforcement pattern: Unmarked cars near limit changes
  • Primary hours: Daily 7am-9pm
  • Revenue significance: 31% of town budget
  • Contest success rate: 60% with proper defense
  • Local court tendencies: Receptive to calibration challenges

Indiana

• Thorntown: I-65 corridor
  • Enforcement pattern: Dramatic limit drops at town boundaries
  • Primary hours: Daily 7am-10pm
  • Revenue significance: 35% of town budget
  • Contest success rate: 62% with proper defense
  • Local court tendencies: Often negotiable with representation
• Woodburn: US-24 near Ohio border
  • Enforcement pattern: Limit drops with minimal signage
  • Primary hours: Weekdays 8am-5pm
  • Revenue significance: 28% of town budget
  • Contest success rate: 58% with proper defense
  • Local court tendencies: Strict but responsive to evidence

Iowa

• Bevington: I-35 corridor
  • Enforcement pattern: Brief speed reduction zone with heavy enforcement
  • Primary hours: Daily 7am-7pm
  • Revenue significance: 26% of town budget
  • Contest success rate: 55% with proper defense
  • Local court tendencies: Receptive to procedural challenges
• Sioux City: I-29 construction zones
  • Enforcement pattern: Lengthy construction zones with inconsistent signage
  • Primary hours: Weekdays 7am-5pm
  • Revenue significance: 19% of enforcement budget
  • Contest success rate: 60% with proper defense
  • Local court tendencies: Often reduces fines with proper challenge

Kansas

• Frontenac: US-69 corridor
  • Enforcement pattern: Immediate limit drop at city limits
  • Primary hours: Daily 8am-8pm
  • Revenue significance: 33% of town budget
  • Contest success rate: 65% with proper defense
  • Local court tendencies: Receptive to proper defense strategies
• Merriam: I-35 corridor near Kansas City
  • Enforcement pattern: Dense enforcement in 55mph zones
  • Primary hours: Rush hours
  • Revenue significance: 22% of enforcement budget
  • Contest success rate: 55% with proper defense
  • Local court tendencies: Technical challenges can be successful

Kentucky

• Pioneer Village: Highway 61 (Preston Highway)
  • Enforcement pattern: Strict enforcement in brief 35mph zone
  • Primary hours: Daily 8am-10pm
  • Revenue significance: 35% of town budget
  • Contest success rate: 68% with proper defense
  • Local court tendencies: Often dismissive with proper documentation
• Sadieville: I-75 corridor
  • Enforcement pattern: Sudden limit drop with minimal warning
  • Primary hours: Daily 7am-9pm
  • Revenue significance: 29% of town budget
  • Contest success rate: 62% with proper defense
  • Local court tendencies: Responsive to signage visibility challenges

The Tourist Trap Phenomenon - Vacation Area Speed Enforcement

• Florida Beach Communities
  • Notable locations: Lawtey, Waldo, Baldwin
  • Enforcement pattern: Target out-of-state tourists less likely to return to contest
  • Contest strategy: Written declarations highly effective
• Colorado Mountain Corridors
  • Notable locations: Idaho Springs, Georgetown, Silverthorne
  • Enforcement pattern: Steep downgrades leading to natural speed increases
  • Contest strategy: Mechanical necessity defense often works

Small Town Revenue Generators - Towns With Highest Percentage of Budget from Traffic Fines

1. Mountain View, Colorado (53% of revenue)
   • Primary trap: Highway 40 transition
   • Enforcement method: Multiple patrol cars in sequence
   • Fighting success: 58% with proper defense
2. Randolph, Missouri (75% of revenue)
   • Primary trap: Highway 210 corridor
   • Enforcement method: Concealed positions near limit changes
   • Fighting success: 72% with procedural challenge
3. Estelline, Texas (89% of revenue)
   • Primary trap: US-287 corridor
   • Enforcement method: Hidden enforcement at limit change
   • Fighting success: 75% with proper defense
4. Oliver, Georgia (61% of revenue)
   • Primary trap: Route 24 corridor
   • Enforcement method: Multiple limit changes with minimal warning
   • Fighting success: 66% with proper defense
5. Tornillo, Texas (58% of revenue)
   • Primary trap: Interstate 10 transition
   • Enforcement method: Speed timing with inadequate signage
   • Fighting success: 70% with proper defense

How to Identify a Speed Trap Before It's Too Late - Physical Warning Signs

• Multiple patrol cars in unexpected locations
• Sudden braking by local drivers
• Anomalous speed limit changes
• Obscured or small limit signage

How SpeedTicketBeaters.com Handles Speed Trap Tickets

Our specialized approach includes:

• Location-specific defense strategies: Customized for known trap areas
• Procedural knowledge: Understanding local court tendencies
• Documentation guidance: Exactly what to gather for your specific location
• Historical success data: Leveraging outcomes from similar cases

Conclusion

Speed traps remain a lucrative enterprise for municipalities nationwide, but armed with location knowledge and proper defense strategies, you can significantly reduce your risk of costly citations. Remember that most speed trap tickets have specific vulnerabilities that make them more contestable than standard enforcement.

Contact us for guidance and immediate help if you've already received a citation!​